Talk:Marjorie Cameron

Tempory page for creating a non-copyvio version

Is here- Talk:Marjorie_Cameron/Temp. Feel free to help. :) Sticky Parkin 12:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Where Did Former Article Go?

Earlier this year there was another Wiki article about Marjorie Cameron, a large one, and that seems to have disappeared to be replaced with this article. I had some edits on the first one, and it had much more information than the present article. Does anyone know what happened to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleister Wilson (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See above. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC).

Excessive citations from Wormwood Star

Dear Wikipedia editors, I am the author of Wormwood Star, the Marjorie Cameron biography that you have referenced on her Wikipedia page. Though I welcome all your contributions, I do feel that far too many details from my book have been included and ask that they be deleted, as they infringe the copyright of said work. Please appreciate that I didn't spend four years researching and writing this book only for much of it's contents and revelations to be made freely available online. There is no need, for example, to include recent details like how the scribbles of Cameron's daughter Crystal led to the black eyes in The Black Egg painting or the mention of Kenneth Anger's Typhoid Mary vendetta against Cameron. Furthermore, earlier shared info in Cameron's Early Life section,about her illegal home abortion should not be mentioned, ditto her going AWOL from the WAVES, and her subsequent honorable discharged. While in the Jack Parsons section, the revelation that Cameron was not aware of the Babalon Working and had no interest in Thelema should not be shared, neither should the detail of her friendship with Juliette Greco; her catalepsy; her reaching out to Sylvan Muldoon; her escape to Mexico after Jack's death and the blood ritual she performed there, as well as the UFO sighting in Washington DC that she linked to Jack's passing -- this is all information that is only meant for someone who is reading Wormwood Star, and these copyrighted details need to be protected. This next section (The Children, Kenneth Anger, and Curtis Harrington: 1952–) is the worst culprit of all, as it shares so many details from my book, including the Eniwetok Atoll nuclear test; details of Cameron's interracial sex magick clique "The Children;" her resulting miscarriage. and increasingly apocalyptic pronouncements of an impending US vs Mexico war. And her belief that she and her followers would be rescued by a flying saucer that would take them to Mars. Her drug arrest SHOULD NOT be mentioned, or her invite from Kenneth Grant to join the New Isis Lodge. The fact that the film Wormwood Star was shot in Edward James house should not be included, neither should her time in Joshua Tree with Burt Shonberg and George Van Tassel -- all of these are details meant only for the book and not general information that should be shared publically. Finally, for the same copyrighted reasons, the quotes from my interviews with Dennis Hopper and Dean Stockwell should not be included under the Personal Life section. I do think, however, you could add this link to the book http://mandrake.uk.net/wormwood-star/ on the Mandrake website under the External Links section near the bottom of the page. Thank you, 88.145.18.67 (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Spencer Kansa

@88.145.18.67: Dear Mr. Kansa, are you aware that the United States Supreme Court held in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) that facts are not copyrightable (although compilations of facts may be)? Simply citing the facts of the case does not infringe copyright, as only your original contributions in the form of your language, your arrangement of the material, your inferences about which facts to relate to which and the like -- that is, only your original contributions are copyrightable. Facts are just facts and are not copyrightable.

Additionally, Article 10 of the Berne Convention protects the right to quote. Please see the following links for more information:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_divide
• https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works/Articles_1_to_21#Article_10

-- Rrburke (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What I'm asking is that these major details and revelations, that are drawn from my biography of Cameron, be left out as it defeats the whole object of writing the book in the first place. I hope you can appreciate that I didn't spend 3-4 years writing this book so that so much of its contents could be shared freely online. The information being shared on Cameron's Wikipedia page is only meant for those who have actually purchased a copy of the book, and the sharing of these intimate details or spoilers is only going to have a detrimental effect on the sales of this book. Would you please consider this and revise the contents of the page accordingly. Thank you. S Kansa88.145.18.67 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns and your desire to maximise sales of your book Mr Kansa, however I'm not really sure that we Wikipedians can realistically acquiesce to your request without undermining the very purpose of our project. Wikipedia exists to summarize the information that is provided in published books and articles (or at least, those which constitute WP:Reliable Sources). It takes that information – which is effectively in the public domain, as one cannot copyright facts – and summarizes it in an encyclopaedic form for all to read. That is exactly what has happened here; both your publication, and the publications of others, have been used in the construction of this article (and cited accordingly).

Whether doing so affects the financial success of the books cited remains unclear (and on this issue, Wormwood Star has been around for five years already; we are not (supposedly) undermining the sales of a brand new, hot-off-the-press publication). However, as I hope that you can appreciate, ensuring the financial success of books unrelated to Wikipedia itself is not really something that Wikipedia concerns itself with; rather, Wikipedia is concerned with advancing the quality of its own articles, for the betterment of global education as a whole. Were Wikipedia to start taking the possible financial impact that it has on publishers and authors into consideration, then pretty soon the whole purpose of this encyclopaedia would be undermined and the project would basically cease because we would only be using very old and very widely circulated information in our articles. We would have to ignore new developments in any and all fields, and that is something that we simply cannot do. As volunteers for the project, we Wikipedians must seek to improve and advance the encyclopaedia's articles, and deliberately undoing improvements to an article at the request of anyone else would set a dangerous precedent.

This probably isn't the response that you were hoping for, so if you wish to take this issue further then I would recommend that you consult Wikipedia's Contact Us page to raise the issue with the project's officials and administration. However, I doubt that you will receive any response that differs from those which myself and Rrburke have already provided. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The meat of my complaint is that there are now over 100 citations drawn from Wormwood Star, which adds up to an enormous amount of information drawn from just one source. It's gotten to the point where the bones of the book have picked dry. I'm asking for a reasonable and fair balance to be struck, in which general info could be shared without giving away so many intimate details/revelations/spoilers. S Kansa88.145.18.67 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I am given to understand that you have contacted [email protected] via OTRS and been told much the same as I and Rrburke have already informed you. If you still wish to pursue this matter further, perhaps consider opening the topic up to discussion through a Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RfC). That way a wider range of Wikipedians and can chip in and come to a collective discussion. If you are unsure about how best to do this then I can initiate the RfC process for you. Alternately, you could always ask Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo for advice, although he's probably pretty busy with other stuff. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There is, of course, another course of action that could be taken: one in which you reconsider that yes, it is unreasonable to plunder one book for over 100 citations, and decide that the right and proper and thoughtful thing to do is make some amendments to this. Also, for some strange reason, the page erroneously states --(citation 111)-- that I published Wormwood Star, when, in fact, it was of course published by Mandrake of Oxford. Thank you. S Kansa. 88.145.18.67 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, such a course of action could be considered through a Request for Comment, if you wish to go down that route. As a single editor I cannot embark on the drastic action of removing information at the desire of an outside author (with all of its worrying repercussions for how Wikipedia works) without a clear consensus of other editors behind me or the clear endorsement of the Wikipedia administration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Jimmy Wales on this matter

I concur with this author's request, both as a matter of form, and because of the over-reliance of the article on a single perspective. As we are not going to rename this article "Marjorie Cameron, from the perspective of Spencer Kansa," or or redefine the article as being an article on this one biography (are we?)—I would simply offer J Wales comment on this at his Talk page, and indicate that I concur:

::I haven't reviewed this in any detail, but 110 citations from a single book doesn't strike me as normal or wise. I doubt if it would make sense for a judgment to be made that "some of the most intimate revelations" be left out to help with book purchases, but it strikes me as a poor approach to a biography to cite so heavily from one book. Per what Wiki77 said above, I'd personally be concerned that so many cites could suggest a "close paraphrase" - worthy of investigation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, active editors, @Midnightblueowl:, @Rrburke:, I will place a one source tag, but please take heed of the request and these two votes (Mr Wales and mine) and begin moving the article toward being encyclopedic. It can be as simple as moving all but a stub of the article to Talk, and then returning it paragraph by paragraph as the material is more broadly sourced. (It should be clear from the foregoing comment, and otherwise, that to simply add addition sources, as the one source tag requests, will not address this egregious overuse of the one biography on any acceptable timescale. To speak in an encyclopedic voice, a balance between that one source and others must be achieved. Hence, my suggestion that paragraphs derived solely form the one source be moved here, and reintroduced after rewriting based on a set of 2-3 sources, and not just the one.) Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I am a longtime member of the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I am going to try to help the editors of this page reach a resolution concerning the current content dispute. I am going to start with some helpful advice to Spencer Kansa, not because I am taking sides but because he appears to be the one here who is most unfamiliar with Wikipedia's procedures and policies. I fully intend to follow up with some serious discussions about the rather unusual situation of one article referencing a single source over a hundred times, so please be patient.

• Please register an account using whatever user name you prefer and sign in when you post. This makes it a lot easier to find your comments and to make sure that we have addressed your concerns.
• Please stop bringing this up in different places on Wikipedia. This is the proper page to discuss this. If we cannot come to an agreement here, I will advise you as to the best place to take this.
• Please take some time to study some of our policies and guidelines. I have added a list at the bottom of this comment. An hour or two spend reading our policies now will save many hours of discussion later.
• Please read my essay at WP:1AM, and especially click on the links in the essay.

Here is that list of policies and guidelines; there is no need to read them all, but pay careful attention to the content guidelines:

I think that if we work together on this we will be able to reach an agreement that everyone can live with. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of the future discussion, here is at least an approximate tally and breakdown of the reliance of the article on its stated sources (number of inline citations, in descending order), in support of the source author's and JW's contention of overuse, with which I concur:

• Kansa, 113 citations (65%);
• Carter, 21 citations (12%);
• Nelson, 17 citations (10%);
• Pendle, 10 citations (6%);
• Kaczynski, 5 citations (3%);
• Starr, 4 citations (2%);
• Landis, 4 citations (2%); and
• Stevens, 2 citations (1%).

There are about 174 total inline citations, as of this signature. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree on this point, Le Prof. Yes, we do cite Kansa a great deal more than any other source in this article. However, that is only natural given that his book is the one and only published biography of Cameron that is currently available. Were another biography of her to be published, then we could bring in many citations from that (thereby bringing the overall percentage relying on Kansa down) but at present such a biography does not exist. We have to work with what we have available, and at present that is one biography of Cameron herself and a range of books devoted to other Thelemites (Aleister Crowley, Wilfred Talbot Smith, and Jack Parsons) which mention her in passing. This is certainly not an uncommon situation on Wikipedia. To use just one example that I was previously involved with, on the article on archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler – which has recently reached FA status – we also use one particular source (in that case Hawkes 1982) more than other references, because it is the primary biography on the subject. Basically, while we have policies cautioning about an article relying "largely or entirely upon a single source", I would argue that 65% does not breach this, and moreover in this circumstance it is not inappropriate given the wider scarcity of other sources. For that reason I would really like to see the tag at the top of the article removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have also begun to add citations in from further sources, which means that the overall percentage of reliance on Kansa's book will decline accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have now added a great deal of further sources from reliable websites, and so the overall percentage of the article that relies purely on Kansa has been dramatically cut back (to under 50%, I would expect). Accordingly, I shall remove the tag from the top of the article, for it quite clearly no longer applies. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Excessive citations from Wormwood Star

Dear Le Prof, I'm very heartened by your comments and those of Jimmy Wales on this matter and, as I've said previously, I hope that a fair and reasonable balance can be struck here, whereby biographical info can be sourced without sharing so many of the most intimate revelations/spoilers/details from the book, which are currently being given away in such an excessive and unnecessary manner. Thank you for your positive input. Regards, S Kansa 88.145.18.67 (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you completely ignore the advice I gave you above? You could have at the very least explained why you rejected it. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I get the impression that it is not the quality of the article that is SK's primary concern, but the fact that it contains 'spoilers' of all the sizzling gypsies he's dug up; as if his monograph were merely a potboiler. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that a distinction should be drawn here between the concern raised by Mr Kansa on the one hand, and the concern raised by Jimmy Wales and Le Prof on the other. The latter two are concerned that we are over-using a single source, which they believe might be in contravention of Wikipedia policies (although I respectfully disagree with them on that one). Mr Kansa however seems to be concerned with the idea that information that is only available in his book and not in other publications is being included here in the Wikipedia article, and that this might in turn impact on the sales of his volume. Jimmy and Le Prof are concerned about the quality of the Wikipedia article; Mr Kansa about the financial success of his work. No Wikipedia editors are actually endorsing his view that certain information cited from his book should be removed from the article lest it impact his sales. There are two different concerns here, and I think we need to be cautious about not conflating them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, as the headline of my posts have repeatedly stated, my main objection has been the excessive use of citations, not the financial repercussions, which is a secondary or a follow on concern. An excessiveness that rarely occurs with other figures, which has been duly noted by Mister Wales and the Prof. As previously stated, my book has been plundered for over 100 citations, quotes have been drawn from it and, more recently, even back stories about the writing of the book and reaction to its publication have now been shared. So that it's gotten to the point where the page is becoming less about Marjorie Cameron are more about the biography that has been written about her. All I've ever asked for is for a fair and reasonable balance to be struck.

To Mr Macon, please be aware that not everyone if as au fait with the inner workings of Wikipedia as you are. When I first attempted to raise my concerns, it's true that I posted on another page other than this one; a genuine mistake, until I was pointed in the right direction. Since then, besides my missive to Mr Wales, all my points have been shared openly here. I don't feel the need to sign in: I've been upfront about stating my position without anonymity. 88.145.18.67 (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"besides my missive to Mr Wales, all my points have been shared openly here". Don't forget the email that you sent to [email protected] via OTRS! (This isn't a criticism, merely an observation...) Personally I don't think that you should need to open a Wikipedia account, but it would be good if you could sign off each comment that you post with your name, so that it is clear that you are the one speaking. Otherwise some confusion might ensue. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Everyone loves a pedant, Midnightblueowl. I just wish you could use the same energy to come to a mutually agreeable compromise on this issue, or even just amend the erroneous citation (111) that I brought to your attention a few posts back. As I've previously said, I welcome the work you've done to the Cameron page, I just think it's unreasonable to plunder the whole book to do it. Regards, Kansa.88.145.18.67 (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The prose edit that you have recommended has now been changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wales’s simplistic comment, based as it is on the number of single-source cites instead of their percentage of the total, fails to grasp the bigger picture. 65% is really of little concern per se. I agree with Midnightblueowl on that score, but also commend reducing reliance on Kansa, as the quality of the source itself is of greater concern. One of the LARB’s passing comments on Kansa’s bio of Cameron—“several shocking stories in the biography are presented as fact without any sources or footnotes”—should caution against blind reliance on the book, and none of Kansa’s unsubstantiated claims should appear in the WP article unless corroborated by other more RS sources. Writegeist (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed two or three of the more trivial pieces of information which are cited purely to the Kansa biography (such as the information that Crystal scrawled over the eyes of "The Black Egg" painting, and that Cameron was briefly a neighbour of a member of the punk band X), however I think that it would be going too far to remove all pieces of information that can, at this juncture, only be cited to Kansa's book. Kansa did conduct research interviewing those who knew Cameron and thus has amassed a great deal of information, particularly about her later life, which just isn't available elsewhere. Removing all of this from the article would greatly impoverish it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Kansa clearly does not want my help or advice, so I am leaving this discussion and unwatching this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Cameron, Stockwell, Hopper

If anyone can find Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons this may throw more light on the relationship between these three, who appear to have lived together.

This is also stated Distraught at this betrayal, Parsons now took up with Marjorie Cameron, an artist and actress who shared lodgings with the up-and-coming actors Dennis Hopper and Dean Stockwell. in Frieze: Contemporary Art and Culture - Volumes 65-68, page 61.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC).

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marjorie Cameron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I seem to have developed an interest in your beautiful articles :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• with the intent of producing mixed-race "moon children" Could this be clearer?

  I've added "who would be devoted to the god Horus" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Better. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Rarely remaining in one place for long "Constantly on the move" would read better.

• I worry about this being a little too colloquial; non-native speakers of English might find the terms "constantly on the move" to be a little confusing because a literal interpretation of it is very different to what the term is actually trying to convey. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• till her death in 1995 You can add in the reason behind her death here.

• I've changed this to "death from cancer". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• authored by Spencer Kansa Anything more on Kansa?

• I can't find any other way of describing him in the lede. I think that this will have to remain as it is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Early life

• a result of which she was court martialed "as" a result

• Changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Jack Parsons

• resulting in the break-up of their friendship How about simply "end of their friendship"?

• I've gone with "termination of their friendship"; does this work for you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sure. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The Children

• "Sex magic" is a duplink

• Removed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think Christmas Eve is too common to be linked.

• I'm not sure that I total agree on this one. Those living in Christian-dominated countries, or who are otherwise familiar with Christian and Christian-derived holidays will be familiar with it, but what about readers living in areas of the world where Christianity has had little impact? If it's okay, I'd lik to leave that link in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Later life

• "Ordo Templi Orientis" is a duplink.

• Removed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think "cremated" is too common to be linked.

• Personally I'd rather leave that one in, again because it is not a common practice in some parts of the world and thus some readers may not be familiar with it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Personality

• According to the historian of Thelema Martin P. Starr I don't think you mean Starr is the only Thelema historian, as this line may seem to imply.

• I've changed this to "to historian of Thelema". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Artistic style

• Cameron's occult beliefs closely impacted on her artworks "on" is redundant

• Removed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Kansa was of the opinion that Cameron You have not yet introduced Kansa in the main article. a biography of Cameron authored by the Briton Spencer Kansa in the next para looks like a good intro, but take care not to have repetition in the following section after this.

• I've introduced Kansa as a biographer at the first mention. He is then introduced as a Briton later on; does this work? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

General

• Say either "U.S." or "United States" throughout the article.

• Oops, looks like I've missed this one. I've gone through and made some alterations with regard to this point. At the first mention of the country in both the lede and the main body of the article I use "United States"; thenceforth I always use the abbreviation "U.S." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

That should be it. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sainsf; incidentally, happy WikiBirthday! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, just one issue left. And welcome, it's great to see someone who remembered this day! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: Sorry I missed that last point! It should all be done now. 12:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Great! Happy to promote this. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date of death

The lead and infobox say June 24, but the Marjorie Cameron § Later life: 1969–1995 section says July 24 and is cited to offline sources, which I cannot verify, and I can't seem to find a reliable source via Google. Can someone please reconcile this discrepancy? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

One year later and nobody has been able to take care of this. The article was even TFA this year, too, and still nobody noticed. Pinging Midnightblueowl... —howcheng {chat} 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, I must have missed this first time. I've checked the sources; it's July. I've changed this in the article. Well spotted, Howcheng! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It was probably The Rambling Man who noticed first. Thanks for fixing it! —howcheng {chat} 05:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)